Perspective wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 1:39 am
Age wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 11:04 pm…But, this contradicts you also claiming that 'another's perspective' is 'so anal' and/or 'with little relevance'.
Again, what you find so-called 'anal' and/or 'with little relevance' another may not, and vice-versa, what another finds so-called 'anal' and/or 'with little relevance' you may not.
It is like unless 'the other' has the exact same 'perspective' as another individual, people are not Truly happy with one another.
That’s like saying all approaches of anything are equally valid.
No it is not at all.
What it is actually saying is, because absolutely every thing is relative to 'the observer', 'your perspective' of things might not be the 'same perspective' of things that others have.
It is absolutely certainly not saying , 'all approaches of anything are equally valid', at all. In fact it is not even talking about any 'approach' at all.
I really am unsure as to what 'it' is, exactly, which has led you to have 'seen' and to have 'assumed' what you did there.
Perspective wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 1:39 am
This is not a grammar forum so obsessing over grammar while ignoring basic thinking (logic/philosophy), is indeed obsessing over the irrelevant.
1. Just from 'my writings' it can be clearly seen that I do not obsess over 'grammar'.
2. I never talked about 'correct grammar', in relation to you. I was just pointing out to "phil8659" how you, purposely, made a 'grammatical error', to make a point, and I was talking about 'correct grammar' in relation to "phil8659" because,
1) That person 'obsesses over grammar'.
2) That person, actually, believes that it is one of the wisest people throughout all of human history.
3. In regards to you I have been more concentrating on the number of different and even opposing definitions words, themselves, can have.
Perspective wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 1:39 am
Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 6:24 am
To me anyway, if absolutely any one even thinks about, let alone wants to 'out another down', or even 'tries to' 'out another down' in my case, then, really, a 'philosophy forum' is not the Right place for them…
Yes, in an ideal world.
1. if one wants to remain in a' non ideal world' and/or in an 'unjust world', then this gives them 'permission' to keep doing what is 'not ideal' and/or what is 'unjust'.
2. In 'any world', if one 'wants to' or 'tries to' 'put any other down', then 'they' do not belong in 'the world' that every one once wanted to live in, let alone belonging in a 'philosophy forum' of all places. If one wants to, or enjoys, 'putting others down', then there are a myriad of 'other places' they can that, and where they can get the same sort of responses. But why come to 'a place' and 'do' the very exact opposite thing of what 'that place' is even about?
Also, if one wants to and enjoys ('trying to') 'put others down', then do not whinge and whine when 'others' do it back, 'to you'.
Perspective wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 1:39 am
Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 6:24 am Okay, and again thanks for clarifying, I agree with and accept 'this definitions', however, why would any one want to come to a 'philosophy forum' to 'debate' and/or 'genuinely debate'?
To me, a philosophy forum is certainly not 'the place' for 'debating'. And, considering the fact that just about every other forum or so-called 'social media' places are just about 'full of debates and/or debating', would it not be better if there were just one place left, which was for the sole purpose of just having actual 'peaceful, and open and honest, discussions, where through 'logical reasoning' alone the whole purpose was to discover and find what the actual answers in Life to the Truly meaningful 'age old' philosophical questions are, exactly, could actually take place, instead?
To me 'debating' involves just 'picking a side', or just 'already having a position', which one then tries their bardes to 'fight for'. And, obviously if one already has, and/or is holding, 'a position', already, that not absolutely every one could agree with, and accept, then 'that position' is not even worth repeating, let alone worth 'fighting for'. And, obviously, if some one wants to 'fight' for 'a view' or 'a position', then they do not want a Truly peaceful discussion anyway.
But, if some one does know of 'a view' in which every one could agree with, and accept, then through just a Truly open and honest 'logically reasoned', peaceful discussion, then 'that view' could be shared, and agreed with and accepted by absolutely every one. However, and of course, every one in 'the discussion' would first need to be completely open, and thus not already be of pre-conceived ideas, prejudices, nor of assumptions and beliefs. Each and every would also obviously be of wanting to learn and understand more, and of anew.
Isn’t that unrealistic?
No 2 people agree on everything.
Of course agreeing on everything would be, and is, unrealistic. But, considering the fact that absolutely no one, well no one that I know of anyway, has ever suggested that people even could, let alone even would, agree on every thing,
1. Why did you bring up this obviously completely impossible thing, here?
2. Why introduce some completely off topic thing, and then point out it being unrealistic?
3. (And this question is for any and/or every one, 'Why do so many of 'my writings', here, get so misconstrued and misunderstood, so often?')
Perspective wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 1:39 am
Disagreements are inevitable.
So are agreements inevitable.
But, so what?
Perspective wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 1:39 am
What can help all involved learn rather than call names, is utilizing critical thinking, logic & basic good manners.
It can come across as a 'very wise' and/or 'very enlightened' remark and statement, to say and claim things like,
Utilizing critical thinking, logic, and basic good manners can help in 'learning'. But, just saying some thing and/or providing advice while not following through with 'that advice' "oneself" besides being hypocritical is self-contradicting, and really not helpful at all.
By the way I found that by just being Truly open, and just seriously Wanting to learn, then one will just keep 'learning' anyway.
Perspective wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 1:39 am
Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 6:24 am
To just never ever allow the attempted attacks to effect 'you' emotionally in any way whatsoever.
To actually 'respond to' 'the attack' will usually have no positive effect at all, a yway, as any one who even wants to and/does make an 'ad hominen attack' has not yet 'grown up' and/or 'matured' enough to 'take on', 'the responses', nor 'to respond' again, in any actual beneficial way anyway…
That is your choice alone.
'i', personally, do not block absolutely any one at all. As 'i' can only learn more and 'grow more' from 'listening to' and 'hearing' what every one has to say.
But, I do also have the ability to not be affected in any way at all emotionally by absolutely any thing that is said and written, here.
You are without emotion? Are you a robot?
Firstly, your first sentence, here, is a statement and/or claim, but with a question mark added onto the end of it. Which usually means one is just expressing what they are actually assuming or believing is true, but with the added 'pretence' of 'questioning'.
Secondly, I never ever said absolutely any thing that i am 'without emotions'. As can be clearly seen in what I actually said and wrote above, here. Having 'the ability' to not be affected, in any way, by words alone, is not 'without emotions'. Just like having 'the ability' to 'not think logically', does not mean that 'that one' is 'without thought'. Can you 'now' recognize and see 'the difference'?
Thirdly, 'the question' in your second sentence, here, is moot, as 'i' am 'with emotion'.
Perspective wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 1:39 am
In the several years I have frequented forums, I have rarely blocked anyone until recently. I have had experiences that taught me to avoid certain patterns of behavior - for my own mental health.
Okay.
What do you think is a good way to respond to ad hominem attacks?
To just never ever allow the attempted attacks to effect 'you' emotionally in any way whatsoever.
To actually 'respond to' 'the attack' will usually have no positive effect at all, a yway, as any one who even wants to and/does make an 'ad hominen attack' has not yet 'grown up' and/or 'matured' enough to 'take on', 'the responses', nor 'to respond' again, in any actual beneficial way anyway.
Perspective wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 11:00 pm
I temporarily blocked Phil because I don’t want to subject myself to more ad hominem attacks. Should I have done that?
That is your choice alone.
'i', personally, do not block absolutely any one at all. As 'i' can only learn more and 'grow more' from 'listening to' and 'hearing' what every one has to say.
But, I do also have the ability to not be affected in any way at all emotionally by absolutely any thing that is said and written, here.
Perspective wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 1:39 am
That’s good that you can see the best in people you have little contact with. Could you still see and focus on the good if you had to be with them 24-7, or if you felt more emotions, more easily?
What are you basing this claim of yours on, exactly, that 'i' can not feel 'more emotions', 'more easily'?
And, yes I can still see and focus on the so-called 'good' if I had to be with people so-called 24-7.
In fact even when those adults who hurt, maim, rape, and/or kill children, deliberately, I can still see and focus on what you call 'the good'.
See, once you learn and understand, fully, why all human beings do what they do, and also understand, fully, why they do what they do, then seeing and focusing on 'the good' remains extremely easy and extremely simple, indeed, and no matter what emotions are arising, within.
)
